People don't really give special names to things like exoplanets unless they are REALLY important for some reason. Its great that he discovered this, but a random hot Jupiter is going to stay named WASP-142b (the article doesn't really know what its talking about here - it has been named as far as the IAU is concerned https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming_exoplanets/ ).

The boy would have to petition the IAU to get the name changed to anything else, and I'm not aware of that ever working in recent times.

People don't really give special names to things like exoplanets unless they are REALLY important for some reason. Its great that he discovered this, but a random hot Jupiter is going to stay named WASP-142b (the article doesn't really know what its talking about here - it has been named as far as the IAU is concerned https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming_exoplanets/ ).

The boy would have to petition the IAU to get the name changed to anything else, and I'm not aware of that ever working in recent times.

Of course everything get's a number-letter designation. Even stars we don't have names for we have number-letter designations for. If I discovered something though I'd at least want to name it. Either after myself or my family for posterity, or, if I was a 15 me, probably something stupid or fun. When I was 15 I pretty much only thought about one thing though.

What, wait...why can't I name it Poontopia? How about Kickassopolis? No? You guys suck. Screw science, I'm going home.

But that's the point. There is no process for naming exoplanets beyond the number-letter process unless you simply petition the IAU to get a popular name. I don't believe that any exoplanets have received non number letter names although I think that the IAU announced that some would in the near future.

Just because you discovered a planet as part of a giant survey doesn't mean that you get to name it (for one, the funding and observational work was from elsewhere). The idea that being the first person to see something gives you the right to name it for all eternity is something of an antiquated old Europe thing. Discoverers get some rights, but they don't get a monopoly on naming.

If you wrote a series of papers about the object and used an informal name, the name might stick. Or it might not if it wasn't proper enough. There can be some politics in naming stuff as well, and a lot of people wouldn't like that you used an informal name (see criticisms of Mike Brown for naming dwarf planets in the solar system and the stuff with naming Eris).

But that's the point. There is no process for naming exoplanets beyond the number-letter process unless you simply petition the IAU to get a popular name. I don't believe that any exoplanets have received non number letter names although I think that the IAU announced that some would in the near future.

Just because you discovered a planet as part of a giant survey doesn't mean that you get to name it (for one, the funding and observational work was from elsewhere). The idea that being the first person to see something gives you the right to name it for all eternity is something of an antiquated old Europe thing. Discoverers get some rights, but they don't get a monopoly on naming.

If you wrote a series of papers about the object and used an informal name, the name might stick. Or it might not if it wasn't proper enough. There can be some politics in naming stuff as well, and a lot of people wouldn't like that you used an informal name (see criticisms of Mike Brown for naming dwarf planets in the solar system and the stuff with naming Eris).

Indeed, quite true. With as many stars as we can see from Earth we'd never be able to come up with meaningful names for all of them, a alphanumeric system is the only logical way to go. I do think some exceptions should be made though when it comes to discoveries like new exoplanets or comets or asteroids. The idea may be antiquated, but there was a certain fairness to it. As with new animal or insect species found today their discoverers still stick with a genus or species name, they also (sometimes) get to name the common name, which is separate from the genus-species, which to me is quite acceptable.

I heard part of the snafu over Eris but didn't really learn any details of it so I'll have to look into it as you suggest. It sounds interesting. Watching the smartest people on the planet argue of stupid issues is always a good laugh. If they're so smart, something that silly really should be a non-issue.

I do think some exceptions should be made though when it comes to discoveries like new exoplanets or comets or asteroids. The idea may be antiquated, but there was a certain fairness to it.

Who gets credit for the discovery? The person who funded the discovery, the person who made the observation, the person who reduced the data, the person who analyzed the data, or the person who oversaw the whole operation? Historically, the credit has gone to the last category (usually the principal investigator). But nowadays the credit is getting spread around more. In any case, the point is that there is almost never a lone discoverer in modern science - its a chain process. The same thing happened here, but they are just focusing on the kid for PR reasons (nothing wrong with that, but just pointing out that he didn't do the observations, probably didn't do most of the reduction, and wasn't the PI).

I heard part of the snafu over Eris but didn't really learn any details of it so I'll have to look into it as you suggest. It sounds interesting.

Eris wasn't the biggest deal, but Mike Brown caused some controversy with naming of some of the other dwarf planets (his team has discovered a lot of them). It's mostly silly stuff, but there is actually a lot of politics in naming this stuff, and there was a feeling that he wasn't following the right procedure.

Its not so much about being smart or dumb, its just that if you get a few hundred people from all around the world, they are going to disagree a lot. Scientists also argue a lot. It is their nature.

Who gets credit for the discovery? The person who funded the discovery, the person who made the observation, the person who reduced the data, the person who analyzed the data, or the person who oversaw the whole operation? Historically, the credit has gone to the last category (usually the principal investigator). But nowadays the credit is getting spread around more. In any case, the point is that there is almost never a lone discoverer in modern science - its a chain process. The same thing happened here, but they are just focusing on the kid for PR reasons (nothing wrong with that, but just pointing out that he didn't do the observations, probably didn't do most of the reduction, and wasn't the PI).

I equate situations like that to something like the "discovery" of America by Christopher Columbus. He had to beg the ships from the Queen and King of Spain, though he still gets public credit for the discovery. Of course you can't discover something people are already living on, and also of course today we have solid archeological proof that the Norse beat Columbus here by over a 100 years as far as European discoverers go, yet I bet we never fix our school books to reflect that last fact which we really should. Clearly today we know Columbus didn't discover America, but a elementary student who just learned in school that he did would say otherwise. The financial aspect of funding should of course get an acknowledgment, just as Queen Isabella gets the credit for giving Columbus his ships in the history books, but he gets the glory, which is even more absurd for naming since Amerigo Vespucci and his maps are where the name America is derived from.

I indeed see how it can be a complicated process though and you're quite right when pointing out this story was just used for PR hype (and probably to get more funding too).

Maybe the creatures living on it? This whole "discovery" thing is nonsense. Who "discovered" America, or Africa? Seriously? The first sentient creature there, that's who.

Also, Baconator, add numbers, Greek/Hebrew/Runes...in zillions of combinations...gonna be LOTSA Banconators...which is as it should be. Run out of combinations and permutations? Go to FlapJacks&Bacon...BackBacon&___ - you fill it in.

I equate situations like that to something like the "discovery" of America by Christopher Columbus. He had to beg the ships from the Queen and King of Spain, though he still gets public credit for the discovery. Of course you can't discover something people are already living on, and also of course today we have solid archeological proof that the Norse beat Columbus here by over a 100 years as far as European discoverers go, yet I bet we never fix our school books to reflect that last fact which we really should. Clearly today we know Columbus didn't discover America, but a elementary student who just learned in school that he did would say otherwise. The financial aspect of funding should of course get an acknowledgment, just as Queen Isabella gets the credit for giving Columbus his ships in the history books, but he gets the glory, which is even more absurd for naming since Amerigo Vespucci and his maps are where the name America is derived from.I indeed see how it can be a complicated process though and you're quite right when pointing out this story was just used for PR hype (and probably to get more funding too).

Chances are the first 'outsiders' were the Vikings....half a millennium before Columbus...

Have to say, at that age I would probably named it after a hot girl I was trying to impress. I should have named it after a mentor or (cliche) my mother, but nope. I would have hoped to score. [e digicons]:')[/e]

They beat Columbus as the first Europeans here by a good while. Hell he should of asked them for directions

Note: I mentioned them being here first up in reply #11

while it is very, very, likely that the Norse visited North America long before Columbus arrived - the real issue is that as a result of Columbus's visits, European powers began taking great interest in the 'new world.' This was unfortunate for the pre-Colombian peoples of the western hemisphere.